| Matter of Paratore v Paratore |
| 2022 NY Slip Op 00793 |
| Decided on February 4, 2022 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on February 4, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
1132 CAF 20-01613
v
MICHAEL PARATORE, MARLENE FOLEY AND WALTER FOLEY, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
KOSLOSKY & KOSLOSKY, UTICA (WILLIAM L. KOSLOSKY OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
SCOTT T. GODKIN, WHITESBORO, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT MICHAEL PARATORE.
STEPHANIE R. DIGIORGIO, UTICA, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT MARLENE FOLEY.
DIANE MARTIN-GRANDE, ROME, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Julia Brouillette, J.), entered November 19, 2020 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, determined a visitation schedule for petitioner to visit with the subject child.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, modified a prior order of custody and visitation, entered on consent of the parties, by setting a specific schedule for the mother's parenting time.
Contrary to the mother's sole contention on appeal, we conclude that Family Court's determination regarding her parenting time was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see generally Matter of Verne v Hamilton, 191 AD3d 1433, 1434 [4th Dept 2021]; Matter of Allen v Boswell, 149 AD3d 1528, 1529 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 902 [2017]). Although the mother contends that the parenting time schedule set by the court was too restrictive, the record establishes that the court's determination resulted from a "careful weighing of [the] appropriate factors" as applied to the circumstances of this case (Matter of Biernbaum v Burdick, 162 AD3d 1664, 1665 [4th Dept 2018] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and the court explicitly provided that the mother's consistent exercise of the established parenting time would constitute a change in circumstances allowing her to seek modification of the order in the near future.
Entered: February 4, 2022
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court